Field guide is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not
substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
plants and
botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
Untitled
David Sibley did not "set new standards", but followed the likes of Hayman et al, Svensson, Johnsson and Killian Mullarney. His text is very poor.
jimfbleak05:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Paintings vs. Photos
Hi everyone. I have read somewhere that it is better to use painted pictures when identifying birds, because photos often have lighting problems and don't record all of the different plumages. What is your take on this? Any advice? Thanks.
ɸSwannieɸ02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
What you have said is definitely the case. All serious field guides and bird family monographs use paintings. Photographs can be beautiful, but are not usually as practical as paintings.
jimfbleak05:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Electronic field guides with photos can be useful if they include close-up photos of all distinctive and salient features. (
Hbreder15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC))reply
There is an article on
Ornithological handbook I just found, very short, but I already had the idea that 'handbooks' had come to mean more than an identification key and succinct description that is supposed to be portable, pocket-sized, held in one hand? While
handbook also suggests that less exhaustive approach, they are a step up in size and content for use as a desk reference (and less commonly owned). The two Australian books I just annotated at that article are examples of this, note that
HANZAB is a multivolume work (I wish I owned).
cygnis insignis19:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)reply